Minor in Live-In Relationship Cannot Seek Court Protection, Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court
Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a protection petition where one partner was a 16-year-old minor, holding that extending judicial protection would implicitly sanction a live-in arrangement the law forbids.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by two individuals seeking police protection to live together, after it emerged that one of them was a minor aged approximately 16 years and 11 months. Justice Sumeet Goel, sitting singly, held that granting the relief sought would amount to an implicit judicial approval of a live-in relationship involving a minor—a proposition directly at odds with the statutory framework protecting minors from exploitation and imprudent choices. The court directed the Commissioner of Police, District Ludhiana, to take requisite steps in accordance with law, and ordered that a complete copy of the petition papers be forwarded to that office.
The Petition and the Relief Sought
Petitioner No. 1, a minor born on 11 August 2009, and Petitioner No. 2, a major working as a driver earning Rs. 16,000 per month, filed CRWP-9197-2026 before the High Court. Their substantive prayer asked the court to direct Respondents No. 2 and 3 — police authorities — to provide adequate security and police protection to both petitioners, and to restrain Respondents No. 4 to 7, their family members, from interfering with their personal lives and liberty.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Harjinder Singh and Mr. Paras, argued that the two had known each other for a long time and intended to marry once Petitioner No. 1 attained majority. According to the petition, when the couple informed their respective families, the parents of Petitioner No. 1 (Respondents No. 4 and 5) forcibly tried to arrange her marriage to the son of the sister of Respondent No. 7. When she refused, she was allegedly beaten and threatened with death. On 22 July 2026, Petitioner No. 1 left her parents' house and joined Petitioner No. 2. Also on that date, Respondent No. 6 allegedly sent a voice note threatening to kill both petitioners. Counsel submitted that attempts through common relatives and community elders to dissuade the private respondents had failed.
The Legal Bar: Minority and Contractual Incapacity
Before addressing the facts, Justice Goel referred to the Division Bench judgment of the same court in Yash Pal and Another v. State of Haryana and others, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10239. That judgment laid down that a minor in a live-in relationship with an adult — or where both partners are minors — cannot seek protection from courts of law.
The Division Bench reasoning, quoted by Justice Goel, grounded this bar in contractual incapacity: a minor belonging to any religious denomination is incompetent to contract, and therefore lacks the capacity to make autonomous choices about entering a live-in relationship. For Hindus, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 fetter such freedom. For other religious communities, the Indian Majority Act prescribes the age of majority and similarly bars a minor from contracting — a disability that equally covers the choice to enter a live-in relationship.
The Division Bench had further reasoned that if courts extend protection to minor partners in live-in arrangements, they would run counter to well-established statutory constraints on minor's discretion and would abdicate the court's duty as parens patriae towards the minor. The proper course where a minor's life faces imminent threat is not to sanction the live-in arrangement but to invoke the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, including directing the minor's stay at a Children's Home or Nari Niketan until majority is attained.
How Justice Goel Applied the Reasoning
Adopting the Yash Pal framework, Justice Goel observed that any petition for protection involving a minor in a live-in relationship must be adjudicated with the paramount consideration being the welfare and well-being of that minor. He held that to extend protection in such circumstances would constitute an implicit approbation of the live-in arrangement itself — a proposition repugnant to the statutory framework designed to shield young persons from exploitation and moral peril.
The court observed that the law has circumscribed the liberties of minors in recognition of their susceptibility to undue influence and imprudent choices, and that any judicial order indirectly sanctioning a minor's involvement in such a relationship would undermine the very protections erected to preserve youthful innocence.
Justice Goel noted that it was the petitioners' own admitted case that Petitioner No. 1 was born on 11 August 2009 and was aged about 16 years, 11 months and 19 days at the time the petition was filed. That admission was dispositive: “petitioner No.1 is a minor and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be afforded relief(s) as sought for in the petition in hand.”
Direction to the Police Authority
While dismissing the petition, the court did not leave the matter without any institutional response. Justice Goel directed the Commissioner of Police, District Ludhiana, to take requisite steps in accordance with law. The court's Registry was directed to forward forthwith a complete copy of the petition's paper-book along with the order to the Commissioner. This direction ensures that the local police authority is informed of the minor's situation and can act within the framework of applicable law, including child protection legislation, without the court itself sanctioning the live-in arrangement.
Order
The petition was dismissed. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of. No order as to costs was made. The Commissioner of Police, District Ludhiana, Punjab, was directed to take requisite steps in accordance with law, and the Registry was directed to send a complete copy of the petition papers to that office forthwith. The judgment was recorded as speaking and reasoned on 3 August 2026.